Search This Blog

Pages

Not Subtle: Matthew 3

Matthew 3 opens with a look at John the Baptist, setting the stage for Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River. The bulk of the chapter covers what John was preaching and who his audience was. A few pieces of background are helpful, though, before we take that apart. First, note that there is a gap between Matthew 2 and Matthew 3 that covers at least two decades. It’s probably closer to two-and-a-half decades, but we have to take the information from Luke that places this in the fifteenth year of Tiberius to draw a clear date. (Somewhere around 26-28 AD, depending on how the calendars synchronize.)

Second, note that Matthew does not spend any time on the birth of John the Baptist. Neither is any effort expended on John’s overall lifestyle or community efforts. We get a glimpse of his diet and fashion, and we know he dwells out in the wilderness, but we know little else. Be sure, as with all parts of Biblical narrative, to separate the known from the assumed. Knowing the culture and the general idea of normal life allows us to fill in some suppositions, but they remain just that. An example with John the Baptist is found in the frequent assumption that he was part of the Essene community in the wilderness—or, at the very least, was in a community that was like them—or, perhaps he was trying to model his life after theirs.

John’s a good example of someone that Scripture records a very specific slice of his life and nothing else. Then we try to fill in the blanks and project that as truth.

In Focus:

Let’s take Matthew 3:7 for our focus point in this passage. John has been preaching that the people should repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He is seeing some measurable results, for many are coming out to hear him preach. And of those that hear him, many are baptized by him in the Jordan River. (There is no corroboration to the rumor that he baptized so many that “John the Pruned-Fingers” was an alternate title.) Sounds like things are going well in his ministry, for the more people that baptized to recognize repentance, the better he has made straight the path of the Lord.

Then events take a turn, and out come some of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They claim to be coming for baptism, but rather than baptize them, John calls them a brood of vipers. He then pointed out the wrath that was coming on them, for a baptism of fire was on the way (3:11-12) and that fire would be destroying the chaff that was useless. John religiously derides the religious leaders of his day and leaves them with one possible out: bear fruit that shows repentance. Not make statements or even join the movement, but bear fruit. Otherwise the axe and the fire are coming for them.

John is certainly not subtle in how he speaks to the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In Practice:

Fortunately, in our day, we don’t have Pharisees and Sadducees to deal with. After all, there are none in our culture who claim to be religious leaders who are driven by power, legalism, or materialism, right? Maybe we have something to learn here after all. Let’s take a moment and see what we have.

We’ll start with how John is not subtle with the religious leaders in his speech. He calls them what they are, making plain their offenses before God. He is not doing this on a populist notion, thinking it will win him points with the people. Instead, it is truth-driven. What does that mean?

Flattery, especially without truth, is not the God-honoring option for our speech. It is worth noting that John is direct with the crowd, but that his harsh tones appear reserved for the people who should have known better. We would be wise to consider our audience as well: there are people that should know better, spiritually, and those who are rightly still figuring out what it is to walk with Jesus. This does not change the truth, nor allow us to avoid speaking the truth. But no more than we chastise toddlers for falling should we chastise new believers for stumbling. Those who claim to be marathoners, though, who can’t get down the sidewalk are another matter.

Second, note the rest of the chapter. John is not subtle, and then Jesus comes on the scene. He’s less subtle than John. He instructs John about baptism. Then, God the Father speaks from the heavens—again, clearly. Subtly, then, should not be taken as the God-honoring option. Not when the plain truth should be spoken.In Nerdiness:

Three Nerd Points:

Nerd Point 1: “the Baptist” could be translated “the Immerser” if not for a few hundred years of English-translation tradition. While you will find “ceremonial washing” as a potential definition for the Greek word “baptizo,” you will also find that usage applies almost exclusively in the Christian tradition, starting with John. In short—if you want “baptizo” to mean “ceremonial washing” because you do “ceremonial washing” and not immersion, you can assume that’s what the word means and read it back. Otherwise, you have to wrestle with the idea that “immerse” is the idea present. (This understanding of baptism is one of the major reasons I’m not Presbyterian. That and ecclesiology. Well, that, ecclesiology, and a few other things.)

Nerd Point 2: Dating of the events. When does this happen? Around the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Is that not 29 AD? It is, if you count from Tiberius taking over by himself. It could be earlier, if you use Tiberius’ coregency. Mix it up with Tiberius’ adoption (unlikely) and it changes more. See? This is why your history book has absolute dates in it.

Nerd Point 3: Don’t miss all of the Trinity present/evident at the baptism of Jesus. Which was, most likely, in the modern nation of Jordan.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Labels

Comments

Post a Comment

To deal with SPAM comments, all comments are moderated. I'm typically willing to post contrary views...but I also only check the list once a day, so if you posted within the last 24 hours, I may not be to it yet.

Popular posts from this blog

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true? That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews. It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America. For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute. This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints. I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly. Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes. All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake. If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender. Now, go ahead and reread it. It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced. There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Good morning! Today I want to take a look at the NIV Faithlife Study Bible. Rather than spend the whole post on this particular Study Bible, I’m going to hit a couple of highlights and then draw you through a few questions that I think this format helps with.

First, the basics of the NIV Faithlife Study Bible (NIVFSB, please): the translation is the 2011 New International Version from Biblica. I’m not the biggest fan of that translation, but that’s for another day. It is a translation rather than a paraphrase, which is important for studying the Bible. Next, the NIVFSB is printed in color. Why does that matter? This version developed with Logos Bible Software’s technology and much of the “study” matter is transitioning from screen to typeface. The graphics, maps, timelines, and more work best with color. Finally, you’ve got the typical “below-the-line” running notes on the text. Most of these are explanations of context or highlights of parallels, drawing out the facts that we miss by …

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…